What level do you prefer?

[Cuchulainshound]

Guys, come on! Cannot one make one statistically decent poll these days!?

Not a bad idea, but the execution is pretty much wide off.

On the nosey.

I prefer 3-7 or so, which neatly straddles two different choices. I chose "mid" because this is BR, and I'd rather be a minimum 5-6th level BR character.

[graham anderson]

I prefer low levels 1-6 levels 1-3 are good low level and about as gritty as d&d gets. My favourites are level 4-6 though as you reach a higher level and can multiclass a number of different classes.

[venkelos9]

I gotta say, at least when I GM, I prefer higher-level. That way, if I'm feeling malicious, my players have a chance, and, more importantly, I don't get the "if this is so earth-shatteringly important, where are the big-hitters?" question. They are the big-hitters, and they act accordingly. Epic is fun, I suppose, but either my players kill things instantly, or the beasts do. No long fights.

Now, if I am PLAYING, I hope for highish level, too. I like to have the maximum amount of believable options. If we are higher-level, so are the encounters, which are better than "you fight some wolves", or "you battle a group of kobold warriors". I suppose it always comes down to who else am I playing with.

Anyway, that's my opinion. Have a good day, folks.

[cyrano24100]

If you change the poll to "What EXACT level do you prefer playing with?" Then allow for all answers through 20, and then 21+...

Of course some will say that a Fighter at 6th or cleric at 4th, or Noble 1st: really depends on the character class, so then we'd have to either specify a class or something.

[kgauck]

Since the purpose of the poll refers to a campiagn setting, and not the construction of a single best adventure or encounter, it makes more sense in the opinion of this writer that broad descrete catagories are used. Play in a campaign will generally involve a range of levels. Others may quibble with the boundaries, but none of that bears meaningfully on the question the poll was meant to address. Those who bothered to express an opinon prefered low and mid-level play by a wide margin. This is often understood as a key feature of the BR setting, expressed in the example NPC's provided and the problems created by stronger characters who deal can sweep away armies and realms single handedly.

As a result, mechanisms for keeping play from getting too powerful, wherever individual groups will draw that line, are useful to BR. Others are free to simply play the core rules.

If the purpose of the poll were to identify a sweet spot where some adventure or encounter were being designed should sit, then other poll designs would make sense. A poll should be designed to answer a certain question. There is no one best way to design a poll. If this is not the question you would have asked, design another. I am quite satisfied that the problem of 20th level characters facing off against armies is not one which needs to be addressed so much as the question of the existance of 20th level characters.

[geeman]

At 01:01 PM 10/22/2006, kgauck wrote:

>If the purpose of the poll were to identify a sweet spot where some
>adventure or encounter were being designed should sit, then other
>poll designs would make sense. A poll should be designed to answer
>a certain question. There is no one best way to design a poll. If
>this is not the question you would have asked, design another.

This is just kind of a "Hey, what do you think?" kind of poll, isn`t
it? Nobody`s going to turn around and use this information to
establish the "official" level of the BR campaign are they? It`s not
like we`re going to kill off a major comic book character or anything....

Gary

[Green Knight]

A side note:

It seems to me that the low/mid level of play was what the authors of BR were aiming for as well. The majority of the published adventures are for fairly low-level PCs.

[Doyle]

A side note:

It seems to me that the low/mid level of play was what the authors of BR were aiming for as well. The majority of the published adventures are for fairly low-level PCs.

Most of those were written to introduce new material though.

[Green Knight]

Most of those were written to introduce new material though.

I don't understand what you are saying here? I'm thinking published adventures - Sword of Roele, Warlock of the Crows, Sword & Crown, King of the Downs, legends of the Hero-kings etc. Granted, each expands on the BR setting (as do all adventures in a way), but how is that related to the play level they were designed for?

[Doyle]

Sorry, what I meant to convey (IMHO), was that most adventures written to introduce new material - especially new campaign starting points - will tend to cater for groups at the start of their campaign, hence low level. Even 'Legends of the Hero-Kings' was set up such that a regent of first level could deal with the presented task. There were a couple of mid to high level scenarios (Warlock of the ... - needed heavy editing anyway - and Sword of Roele), but then they weren't introducing setting material. Given how few official modules were written for the setting (compared to many other settings) that were not introductory, there are perhaps too few examples to draw the conclusion of 'mostly low to mid level' intention of the writers. I would be interested to know what level the 'Return of the Cold Rider' series (that was never finished as far as I know) was aimed at.